In a nutshell a bunch of racist frat boys at the University of Oklahoma were caught on camera singing a racist chant that contained the n word and a bunch of other offensive crap. Someone leaked the video which ended up on social media & the president of the university expelled 2 of the students (& apparently more expulsions may be forthcoming).
At first I thought, good for him. Excellent that he acted swiftly, decisively, & made examples out of those losers. But now I’m wondering how all this squares with the First Amendment. Don’t racist frat boys have the right to exercise their freedom of speech, no matter how ignorant?
There have been cases very similar to this in the past. It’s not new case law by any stretch. The university president should have checked with the school’s attorney before kicking them out.
They have the right to free speech and the president of the university has the right to expel them.
The right to free speech is not absolute. Defamatory remarks (such as these) are not protected. Meither is speech which could reasonably cause imminent danger to others.
We touched on this in the other thread. I think it’s pretty obvious that they would win a free speech claim.
But bringing suit would also dig themselves into an even deeper hole. A smarter move is probably to suck it up, take this as an opportunity to grow and become better people, and try to pay back the community they harmed.
A public university almost certainly does not have the right to punish them. A private organization (like SAE), yes, but public universities are the government. They cannot sue for libel, even when untrue things are said about them. They are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. They cannot punish students for engaging in constitutionally protected speech (and this speech is certainly constitutionally protected: there was no true threat being conveyed).
They don’t always see themselves as the government, and so they don’t always act like it, but when push comes to shove in court, they are the government, and are restricted in the same way that congress or the police are.
The First Amendment applies to far more than criminal prosecutions. It forbids any government actor–including state-run universities–from punishing you because of protected speech that the government doesn’t like. That includes hate speech.
What hole would they dig themselves into? They’d get to go back to school and finish their education, which they’ve already sunk a sizable sum of money in to. They might get a financial judgement too. Who’s going to say no to money?
Is the legal freedom of speech intended to protect anyone from all consequences of their exercising it, even if there is no penalty in criminal law?
Trying to think of a comparable situation in UK circumstances, it occurs to me that many organisations here have some sort of general clause in conditions of employment or membership about not bringing the organisation into disrepute. Does something similar apply in the US?
They’ve been a national story for a day or two now. That will fade if they let it fade. If they sue the university, their notoriety will increase. Do you know their names right now? I don’t. But I’ll bet we’ll know their names if they bring a lawsuit.
Moreover, there are some people out there who might be inclined to think these young adults deserve a second chance. Yeah, they sang a vile, racist song. They obviously need to change their lives in some fundamental way. But if they take this opportunity to improve, this doesn’t have to ruin their lives. By contrast, if they file a lawsuit over this, even those people inclined to have some sympathy for stupid young people will quickly lose patience.
So, yeah, they could win some money. And get reinstated in school. But that would be the least of my concerns if I was at risk of having a national reputation for being a racist.
Most universities have a code of conduct that students agree to adhere to, and that violations of which can be enforced by the university up to and including expulsion. I imagine that racist and hate speech at a university sanctioned event (through the fraternity that’s affiliated with the university) would break that code.
The first amendment protects anyone from all consequences from the government. The University of Oklahoma is the government. That’s why the frat, SAE, is totally okay kicking these students out, but the University of Oklahoma is not.
Several states do have laws that are supposed to protect employees from retribution from their employers for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, even private employers, but that’s only some states, and anyway it’s pretty hard to prove that you weren’t hired because of what you said when you were a stupid teenager.
American free speech protects you from government sanctions–criminal and otherwise–but does not protect you from, say, criticism, or from private employers refusing to hire you, or a whole range of other consequences.
Yes. Government employees have their speech restricted when they are acting in the capacity as an employee, and in some instances even when they are not. One justification for that rule is the one you cite.
If such a code from a public university allows the university to expel students for their constitutionally protected speech, then than code is unconstitutional. This is not a new phenomenon. The University will lose if they are sued.
It does. A simple skim of the OU Student Code of Conduct shows that they violated it. I would like to see them sue, just to get the constitutional issues settled.
Meh…if Parker Rice and Levi Pettit have the balls to stand up and defend themselves for their free speech rights to chant racist ass-foolery songs as they did…let them. I presume that they and their families wish this would all just go away. As far as the economic damages…based upon what their father’s do for a living, I think they’ll be fine.